Saturday, August 3, 2013

Loan quality will be under stress this fiscal: Exim Bank




BL :2 Aug 2013

Export-Import (Exim) Bank of India sees stress on asset quality to continue during this fiscal.
The Government-owned bank expects its non-performing assets (NPA) to be slightly higher this fiscal, as compared to last year.

“Asset quality stress has not peaked as yet. We are likely to add some more (accounts slipping into NPS) this year. However, starting next year, the stress on asset quality should be largely out,” David Rasquinha, Executive Director of Exim Bank said.

Rasquinha was talking to newspersons after an interactive session on ‘Financing options for project exports’ here on Friday.

As on March 31, 2013, Exim Bank’s net NPA grew to 0.47 per cent as against 0.29 per cent as in FY12.

Its restructured account portfolio stood at Rs 3,000 crore last fiscal. Exim Bank is likely to restructure some more accounts this fiscal.

With asset quality continuing to be under stress, Exim Bank will look at reorienting its projects, step up recovery and if need be tinker with interest rates to maintain its profitability, he said.
Exim Bank is eyeing 15-20 per cent growth in its loan portfolio this fiscal. Its loan book grew by 20 per cent to Rs 66,000 crore in 2012-13.

Rasquinha said the growth in loan book will come from two segments – lines of credit and long-term buyer’s credit.

“We grew by 20 per cent last year. It is still too early to comment on the growth rate this year, however, we expect 15-20 per cent growth in loan book,” he said.

Exim Bank was laying emphasis on pushing sustainable exports, particularly in the projects sector. Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Nepal and Mozambique were some of the major markets for project exports for Exim Bank, he said.

Exim Bank will shortly open an office in Myanmar, he added.

(This article was published on August 2, 2013)

Bad Loans Inch Up for India’s Largest Banks


By Gurdev Singh Virk :WSJ :2 Aug 2013

India’s slowing economic growth is starting to pinch some of its most profitable banks, and analysts expect their pain to worsen in coming months.

India’s slowing economic growth is starting to pinch some of its most profitable banks, and analysts expect their pain to worsen in coming months.

Bad loans at nonstate banks like Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., at HDFC Bank Ltd. and ICICI Bank Ltd. have inched up in the April to June quarter over the first three months of the year, according to their recently released earnings data. In addition, these banks have increased their provisions sharply, a sign that they expect bad loans to rise in the future. Higher provisions reduce the banks’ profits.

Stocks of these banks, which have long been favorites of foreign investors, have fallen by 5% to 16% since the beginning of July.

So far, bad loans had been rising mainly for state-run banks, like State Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, who are among the largest lenders to corporate India.

As the Indian economy has slowed, the profits of many Indian companies have fallen and their interest payment had increased because the central bank had been raising benchmark rates till late 2011Companies had taken a lot of debt during India’s boom several years ago, but are struggling to repay now that it is coming due. Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. defaulted on its debt last year, while companies like wind-turbine maker Suzlon Energy Ltd. and construction company HCC Ltd. have restructured their debt.

Ratings firm Crisil expects that the gross non-performing assets of all Indian banks would be 4% of total loans by end-March 2014 – the highest since 2005.

Most of these bad loans are being held on the books of state-run banks, who had been aggressive lenders in the recent past.

Meanwhile nonstate banks, like Kotak, HDFC Bank and ICICI Bank, lent mainly to individuals, who have in general been good about repaying their loans.

On corporate lending, these banks had been more selective. But now, even the companies they had lent to are hurting.

To be sure, the level of bad loans for the non state lenders remains small, and they aren’t at any risk of going under.

But they have increased their provisions for bad loans that could come down the road – a worrisome sign, say analysts.

In the April to June quarter, gross bad loans for Kotak Mahindra Bank rose to 9.95 billion rupees ($164 million) or 1.95% of total loans, versus 7.58 billion rupees ($125 million) or 1.55% of advances in the January-March quarter. The bank’s provisions for bad loans and other contingencies jumped as of June 30 stood at 1.7 billion rupees ($28 million), more than four times its provisions for the previous quarter.

Gross bad loans for ICICI Bank, the largest nonstate lender, rose to 100 billion rupees ($1.65 billion) or 3.23% of total loans, up from 96 billion rupees ($1.57 billion) or 3.22% in the previous quarter. Its provisions for bad loans rose to 5.93 billion rupees ($98 million), 29% greater than its provisions for the previous quarter.

HDFC Bank’s non-performing assets stood 27 billion rupees ($447 million) or 1% of loans held at the quarter ended June, versus 23 billion rupees ($384 million) 0.97% in the January to March period. HDFC Bank’s provisions rose by 75% to 5.27 billion rupees ($87 million).

Representatives for all three banks didn’t immediately respond to emails for comment.

Analysts expect the bad loans and provisions for these banks to rise further over the next year, as profits of Indian companies shrink amid slowing demand.

“Several firms are yet to be restructured, and most banks suggested the possibility of another (set of) mid-to-large corporate” loans turning bad, said a recent research note from U.S.- based Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Analysts say this could weigh on share prices of these banks from here on.

Shares of ICICI Bank have fallen 16% over the last month to trade at 899 rupees on the Bombay Stock Exchange on Friday. HDFC Bank has lost 5% over the last month to trade at 632 rupees, while Kotak Mahindra is down 10% to 653 rupees.

Friday, August 2, 2013

The $7 trillion problem that could sink Asia

At the very least, Asia should stop adding to its dollar holdings and consider ways to bring more of those funds home. They could be used for infrastructure, education, research and development on cleaner energy, or any other vital investments in the future. Photo: Bloomberg

William Pesek :: Fri, Aug 02 2013. 10 13 AM IST

It’s our currency, but it’s your problem. This musing from Nixon-era treasury secretary John Connally is about to find new relevance as the White House battles Republicans over raising the US debt limit.
Connally couldn’t have foreseen how right he would be 42 years on as Asia sits on almost $7 trillion in currency reserves, much of it in dollars. Asia’s central banks are engaged in a kind of financial arms race after a 1997 crisis, stockpiling dollars as a defense against turmoil. That altered the financial landscape in two ways: One, Asia now has more weapons against market unrest than it knows what to do with. Two, Asia is essentially America’s banker, with China and Japan having the most at stake.
That might be less problematic if not for Capitol Hill’s propensity for shooting itself in the foot. A pointless squabble over the debt ceiling prompted Standard and Poor’s to yank the US’s AAA credit rating in August 2011, sending panic through global markets. Asia is now bracing for months of posturing when the US Congress returns from its August recess.
In a perfect world, Washington’s bankers would threaten to call in their loans. Asian nations would sit White House and congressional leaders down and tell them to get their act together. But Connally’s 1971 observation is infinitely truer today than at any time in Asia’s history. We need to stop considering huge reserve holdings as a financial strength. They are a trap that is complicating economic policy making. It’s time Asia devised an escape.
Fiscal matters
China isn’t without leverage. It’s no coincidence that new treasury secretary Jacob Lew’s first overseas visit in March was to his banker-in-chief, Xi Jinping, in Beijing. Nor did it go unnoticed that Lew was the new Chinese president’s first foreign-official meeting. Lew may have been sending Xi a signal this week by calling on Congress to act in a way that doesn’t create a crisis on fiscal matters.
But that leverage is limited. Xi and Premier Li Keqiang are engaged in a risky rebalancing act, trying to wean the Chinese economy off exports without fanning social unrest. Another debt- limit tussle would fuel market volatility, strengthen the yuan as the dollar plunges, and result in the loss of tens of billions of dollars in China’s portfolio of US treasuries.
“They don’t like it,” says Leland Miller, the New York-based president of China Beige Book International. “But while they’re sure to make some loud noises about it, at the end of the day, they understand they have no option but to accept the hand they’re given.”
In Tokyo, Shinzo Abe faces a similar dilemma. An important pillar of the prime minister’s plan to end deflation and restore healthy growth is a weak yen. The currency’s 17% drop since mid-November has helped even down-and-out Sony Corp. eke out some profits. Yet the yen would surge anew on another US downgrade: In 2011, a giant flight-to-quality trade drove huge amounts of capital Japan’s way.
The more Asia adds to its holdings of US debt, the harder they become to unload. If traders got even the slightest whiff that China was selling large blocks of its $1.3 trillion in dollar holdings, markets would quake. The same goes for Japan’s $1.1 trillion stockpile. So central banks just keep adding to them. Pyramid scheme, anyone?
Never before has the world seen a greater misallocation of vast resources. Loading up on dollars helps Asia’s exporters by holding down local currencies, but it causes economic control problems. When central banks buy dollars, they need to sell local currency, increasing its availability and boosting the money supply and inflation. So they sell bonds to mop up excess money. It’s an imprecise science made even more complicated by the Federal Reserve’s quantitative-easing policies.
Stealth selling
At the very least, Asia should stop adding to its dollar holdings and consider ways to bring more of those funds home. They could be used for infrastructure, education, research and development on cleaner energy, or any other vital investments in the future. The question, of course, is how?
There is a clear first-mover advantage for smaller economies. South Korea (with $53 billion in treasuries), the Philippines ($40 billion) or Malaysia ($18 billion) could try to dump dollars on the sly. Bigger ones couldn’t pull that off in this hyperconnected, 24/7-news-cycle world; news of sizable central-banker sell orders would inspire copycats.
Washington can help, and not just by avoiding another suicidal debt-limit fight. The treasury should engage with its Asian counterparts in a cooperative, transparent brainstorming process to draw down their reserves without devastating markets. It’s in the US’s best interest to keep more of its debt onshore, Japan-style, by attracting greater purchases from cash- rich US companies. That would make the US less vulnerable to capital flights in the future.
If ever there were a time for a currency summit, it’s now. Perhaps the International Monetary Fund or the Group of 20 can host the debate. Such high-level discussions would help Asia set goals and consider the mechanics and timing of reclaiming more of its savings. Only then will all those dollars start being the solution to Asia’s challenges, not the problem. Bloomberg

SBI chief, Pratip Chaudhuri, blames government for rising NPAs





Sangita Mehta, ET Bureau | 2 Aug, 2013, 04.31AM IST

MUMBAI: Pratip Chaudhuri, chairman of the country's largest lender State Bank of India, blamed the government's tardiness in clearing projects and supply of coal - or the lack of it - as the reasons behind rising sticky loans in the banking sector. 

Speaking at a closed-door meeting between bank chiefs and senior Reserve Bank of India officials, Chaudhuri stoutly defended the banks, arguing they alone cannot be blamed for the spike in bad loans, which have hurt their balance sheets. 

The SBIchief was responding to an observation made by RBI officials that sharp rise in non-performing assets is due to improper appraisal and monitoring by banks. Chaudhuri, however, could not be reached for his comments. 

"Is it the banks' failure in monitoring or is it the government that has not delivered what it promised," he had asked, according to bankers present at the meeting. 

Chaudhuri stressed in the meeting that if the government and RBI continue to blame banks for rising NPAs, they would be forced to insert impossible conditions in loan covenants that would make it difficult for borrowers to avail the credit facility. 

Bankers also said that many projects have become unviable because of the delay in getting environment clearances, allocation of land and non availability of coal. Besides, project costs have increased due to time overruns. 

Coal India has failed to scale up its output and meet the requirements of power firms. Power utilities suffered due to unavailability of coal which has impacted their revenue and eventually their ability to repay banks. 

Bankers also gave instances of loan sanctioned for road projects, where 80% of the land was acquired on the assumption that government will allocate the rest, but subsequent delay in government actions had affected such projects. Due to these delays, several manufacturing and infrastructure projects failed to achieve their commercial operation date (CoD). 

As per RBI norms, banks have to classify a project as a bad loan if it fails to start commercial operations from one year of the original date of commencement. 

Banks have to classify the loan as sub-standard even if the company continues to pay regular instalment of loans. 

The net non performing assets ( NPA) of banks have risen 51% in fiscal year 2012-13 to Rs 92,825 crore over the previous year, and a number of PSU banks have shown either a dip in profit or a modest rise in first quarter profit due to sharp rise in stress loans.

Subbarao: More steps on way to check NPAs





PTI: Chennai, Fri ,Aug 02 2013, 01:11 hrs

Concerned over rising bad loans, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) on Thursday said it will take more measures to check non-performing assets (NPAs) of the public sector banks.

"We are going to put in more measures to see that NPA level is controlled across the asset quality of banks. It is very very important for credit to continue to go to productive sectors," RBI Governor D Subbarao said while delivering the 5th R Venkataraman Endowment Lecture here.
RBI, in the past, has taken some steps in this regard including increase in provisioning norms and tightening norms for restructuring.

Subbarao noted that public sector banks have high NPAs than private sector banks. "It is true that NPAs in public sector banks are higher than private sector banks because their decision variables are different," he said. 

The RBI governor was also non-committal on a time frame for rolling back liquidity tightening measures and said that they would remain in force till stability is achieved in the foreign exchange market

To postpone auction, agent makes hoax call





S Ahmed Ali, TNN | Aug 2, 2013, 03.33 AM IST

MUMBAI: An estate agent from Kandivli, who made a hoax call to the police control room regarding a possible blast at the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT) at the Income Tax building in Billard Pier to postpone a property auction verdict, was arrested by the crime branch on Thursday.

Alok Dinesh Tanna (29) thought that if he made a hoax call, the auction verdict, which was going in someone else's favour, would be postponed and he could manage to get a favourable order at the next hearing.

 But he ran out of luck when the police control room tracked the cell phone number from which he had made the call.

On July 26, Tanna anonymously called up the police control room and said he was passing off an important information that he had overheard. He said a bomb has been placed at the Debt Recovery Tribunal and it may go off anytime.

 "Within a few minutes, several police teams, including the bomb detection and disposal squad (BDDS) and sniffer dogs, were rushed to the spot. After three hours of search, nothing was found," said Subhash Sawant, senior inspector of unit 11.

The police registered an offence against unknown persons and the crime branch also conduced a parallel probe. 

During the course of investigations, police tracked down the cell phone number from which the hoax call was made.

"We traced the person in whose name the Sim card was registered. He said he was not using the number. However, we got some leads from there and picked up Tanna who runs an estate agency near Raghuleela Mall in Kandivli," said Niket Kaushik, additional commissioner of police (crime).

On Thursday, the police questioned Tanna on length. 

He finally admitted to have made the hoax call because he wanted to postpone a DRT auction order which was to take place on July 26

. "Tanna claims that the order was likely to go in other party's favour and hence to cancel or postpone the order he made this hoax call," said investigating officer Chimaji Adhav.


Tanna, who has been booked under various IPC sections for threatening, giving false information, endangering human life, has been remanded in police custody.

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Banks urged to ease NPA norms

CPI leader D Pandian speaking on the sidelines of a seminar | Martin Louis
CPI leader D Pandian speaking on the sidelines of a seminar | Martin Louis


31st July 2013 




































The National Confederation of Small Industry organised a seminar on restructuring of sick Micro Medium and Small Enterprise (MSME) units here recently.
Speaking on the sidelines of the event, CPI leader Pandian said that in the past, MSMEs had recorded higher levels of exports than corporate companies. “Corporate firms retrench workers. MSMEs, on the other hand, create employment opportunities,” he noted.
Earlier, G K Basha, senior vice president, Industrial Estate Manufacturers Association, Guindy, said MSMEs in India account for 45 per cent of total exports while employing about 50 per cent of the workforce in the country. Tamil Nadu comprises 7.5 lakh MSME units, the highest in India. “But, stringent measures in the name of Surface Act, effected by banks have left MSMEs in a quandary,” he said and added that the seminar was primarily focused on this issue. 
According to him, a company that defaults on loan repayment continuously for three months is declared as a Non Performing Asset (NPA). “Presently, MSMEs all over India are facing various problems like power shortage and delayed payments by large scale industries,” he added. In such a scenario, the conditions enforced by the banks were making the functioning of MSMEs tougher. 
Basha sought banks to ease theirnorms, as it was done before 1995 for the survival of MSMEs

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Ex-royal’s daughters get Rs.20,000-crore relief from court


After 20-year-long legal battle, former Maharaja's daughters get Rs.20,000-crore relief



Maharaja's daughters to inherit assets worth Rs 20,000 cr

 Deccan Herald :PTI :Chandigarh, July 28, 2013

Daughters of the erstwhile Maharaja of Faridkot are set to inherit his estates and assets worth a staggering Rs 20,000 crore following a local court's ruling after a 23-year-old legal battle that his will was forged.

Chief Judicial Magistrate Rajnish Kumar Sharma on Thursday gave the verdict in favour of Sir Harinder Singh Brar's eldest daughter, Amrit Kaur who had challenged the will which had entitled a trust as the caretaker of the estates and assets including the Faridkot House in the heart of the national capital, a palace and a fort in Punjab besides bank deposits and jewellery.

The assets include large number of properties in Chandigarh, Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Andhra Pradesh.

The court declared that the will was "forged and fabricated", making Amrit Kaur and her sister, Deepinder Kaur, heir to the estate and assets worth Rs 20,000 crore under the Hindu Succession Act.

As the will forged on July 1, 1982 has been declared "illegal" and "void" by the court, the 'Meharwal Khewaji Trust' has also become illegal, according to the Maharaja's family's advocate Vikas Jain.

Of the Maharaja's three daughters, Amrit Kaur resides in Sector 10, Chandigarh; Deepinder Kaur is in Kolkata while Maheepinder Kaur died a few years ago in Shimla.
At the time when the will was forged, Sir Brar was in depression as his only son Tikka Harmohinder Singh Brar had died.

On June 1, 1982, the servants in connivance with certain people and lawyers had executed the will, while the Maharaja’s family including his wife and mother (then alive) were kept in the dark. 

The will which was executed eight months after Tikka Harmohinder’s death, raised the trust and all the servants of Maharaja and lawyers, including some others were made trustees.

Amrit Kaur was divested of all the powers of heiress on the ground that she had married against the wishes of the late Maharaja.

Deepinder Kaur was appointed trust chairman on paltry salary of Rs 1,200 per month while Maheepinder Kaur was given a salary of Rs 1,000 a month.

After the purported will came to light in 1989 following the death of the erstwhile ruler, Amrit Kaur filed a suit challenging the will in 1992 stating that her father had never made any such will and she was with her father till his death.

The suspicion about the will arose as the Maharaja excluded his mother Mohinder Kaur and his wife Narinder Kaur while all the employees, irrespective of their designation or class were appointed trustees.


 Ex-royal’s daughters get Rs.20,000-crore relief from court

IANS  |  Chandigarh  July 28, 2013 Last Updated at 09:35 IST

It is a royal bonanza for two daughters of a former maharaja, one they had to wait for over two decades.
A court here has declared a 32-year-old will "forged" and illegal" and granted inheritance of properties and assets worth a whopping Rs 20,000 crore ($4.4 billion) to the two daughters of the erstwhile Maharaja of Faridkot, Harinder Singh Brar.
The properties and assets include the palatial Faridkot House on New Delhi's Copernicus Marg, a royal palace complex and a fort in Faridkot, a fort in Mani Majra area of Chandigarh, vintage cars (including a Rolls Royce), an aerodrome in Faridkot spread over 200 acres, properties in Hyderabad and Delhi, gold and jewellery worth nearly Rs.1,000 crore with Standard Chartered Bank in Mumbai and more.
Real estate experts and accountants put the total worth of the properties and assets at over Rs.20,000 crore. The Mani Majra fort, which is over 350 years old, is not in a very good condition. The erstwhile ruler was allowed to keep these properties after the country's independence in August 1947.
The legal battle for the assets started in 1992 after the ex-maharaja's daughter Amrit Kaur filed a case in a court here. Following a 21-year-old legal battle, the court of the chief judicial magistrate Rajnish Kumar, ordered Thursday that the 1981 will, purportedly drawn up by the maharaja, was "forged and fabricated".
With the court judgment, Amrit Kaur and her Kolkata-based sister Deepinder Kaur will inherit the properties and assets of the erstwhile ruler. Their third sister, Maheepinder Kaur, who was not married, died under mysterious circumstances in Shimla in 2001.
Brar had three daughters and a son, Harmohinder Singh, who died in a road accident in 1981. Following this, Brar went into depression.
In her suit, Amrit Kaur, who lives in Sector 10 here, alleged that the will was forged by officials and servants of the ex-ruler at a time when he was in depression. The will, which gave all his properties and assets to the Meharwal Khewaji Trust, was registered in 1982. The trust had some of his servants on board, while his two daughters were appointed chairperson and vice chairperson for a mere Rs.1,200 and Rs. 1,000 per month.
Following the death of the erstwhile ruler in 1989, the trustees took control of all the properties and assets.
Amrit Kaur challenged the will, saying that the trust members had forced her father to sign it at a time when he was in depression. She had claimed that he was not in a "fit state of mind" when the will was drawn up. She pointed out that the will had completely excluded his wife, Narinder Kaur, and mother, Mohinder Kaur, who were alive in 1981-82.
Following the court order decclaring the will "illegal and void", the trustees are likely to appeal to a higher court

Agricultural Land secured-Writ dismissed




Writ petition  -Article 226 of the Constitution of India -forbear from bringing the agricultural land  to sale on 27.10.2009 or any other date by Tender/Auction/Tender cum Auction by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Central Act 54 of 2002) as amended


Madras High Court
Kalpesh P.C.Surana vs Indian Bank on 10 March, 2010
DATED: 10/03/2010
C O R A M
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C. NAGAPPAN
and
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM
Writ Petition No.21759 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
Kalpesh P.C.Surana ... Petitioner
Vs
Indian Bank
Teynampet Branch,
463, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018
through its Authorised Officer ... Respondent
Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to forbear from bringing the agricultural land described in the schedule hereunder to sale on 27.10.2009 or any other date by Tender/Auction/Tender cum Auction by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (Central Act 54 of 2002) as amended. 

For Petitioner ... Mr.S.Raghavan
For Respondent ... Mr.Jayesh B.Dolia
for M/s.Aiyar &Dolia


O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by C.NAGAPPAN, J.)

The petitioner has sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to forbear from bringing the agricultural land described in the schedule, to sale on 27.10.2009 or any other date by invoking the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he is the owner of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.131/8 part and Patta No.1015 issued in his name on 30.7.2007 of an extent of 1 acre and 62 cents in Vaikkadu village and he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20.3.1990 and the land is described as agricultural land in the sale deed and Patta No.237 was given to his vendor pursuant to the order dated 5.2.1972 made by the Settlement Tahsildar, Chinglepet under Section 12 of the Tamil Nadu Act No.26 of 1963 and kist has been paid by his vendor as well as by himself and it has been used for agricultural purpose and was given on lease from 19.9.2001 to one Motilal by the petitioner. It is further stated by the petitioner that the respondent Bank granted loan to one S.Sakthivel upto a limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- and on 21.8.2007, the petitioner executed a Guarantee Agreement along with Mrs.S.Vijayakumari, wife of Sakthivel for due repayment of the loan and the respondent Bank obtained from him on 24.8.2007 a Memorandum of deposit of Title Deeds by which it purported to obtain an equitable mortgage by deposit of documents of agricultural land of the petitioner as security for repayment of loan advanced to Sakthivel. According to the petitioner, the list of documents annexed to the said Memorandum shows that the land is agricultural land and the Documents 1 to 12 in the Memorandum are xerox copies and not originals and there was no valid deposit of title deeds of the agricultural land and as such there is no valid and enforceable equitable mortgage created in favour of the respondent Bank.

 The petitioner has further stated that for the first time he received a demand notice dated 6.6.2009 purported to have been issued under Section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 from the Authorised Officer and Chief Manager of the respondent Bank addressed to the borrower as well as the guarantors calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.95,29,983.70 with interest and in the event of failure, to initiate appropriate legal proceedings for recovery and another legal notice dated 6.6.2009 classifying the loan account as Non Performing Asset and calling upon them to pay the amount, failing which, to exercise the right under Section 13(4) of the Act against the secured asset viz. agricultural land belonging to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he sent a detailed reply dated 3.8.2009 which was received by the respondent Bank and it did not consider his representation/objection and did not communicate any reply within the stipulated period under the Act and the petitioner received the notice of intended sale on 29.9.2009 and aggrieved by the same, he has filed the present writ petition.

3. The main ground raised by the petitioner is that the land of the petitioner is agricultural land and it is evident on the face of the documents mentioned in the registered Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds and since the land is classified as agricultural land by the Revenue Authority, the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are not applicable as stipulated under Section 31(i) of the Act and the proceedings initiated by the Authorised Officer are null and void. 

In support of the submission, the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in N.SRINIVASA RAO V. SPECIAL COURT UNDER THE A.P. LAND GRABBING (PROHIBITION) ACT (2006) 4 SCC 214). In addition, the petitioner has also raised the ground that the respondent Bank has failed to consider the representation/objection of the petitioner dated 3.8.2009 and has not communicated the reasons for non-acceptance of it and in view of the failure to comply with Section 13(3-A) of the Act, the proceedings are vitiated and in support of the submission, the petitioner relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in MARDIA CHEMICALS LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA [(2004) 4 SCC 311].

4. The next contention of the peitioner is that the proposed notice of intended sale is contrary to Rules 8 and 9 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and no possession notice has been delivered by the Authorised Officer to the petitioner for having taken possession of the land as contemplated under Rule 8(1) and there is non-compliance of the provision of Rule 8.

5. The respondent Bank in its counter affidavit has stated that the property of the petitioner was offered by way of equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds as security for the loan obtained by Sakthivel and the said equitable mortgage was duly registered as Document No.9702/2007 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Tiruvottiyur and the petitioner had given his sworn affidavit in the form of declaration, dated 24.8.2007, wherein he confirmed that he has submitted all the original documents pertaining to the property with the respondent Bank for the purpose of mortgage by way of collateral security and in addition, the petitioner along with Mrs.S.Vijayakumari, wife of Sakthivel, stood as guarantors jointly and severally for the due repayment of the loan and as on 14.12.2009, a sum of Rs.97,23,646.70 was due and repayable in the loan account.

 According to the respondent, the land which was offered as security is not agricultural land and it is in the midst of joint industrial houses and it has never been put to any agricultural activities and the petitioner has produced a certificate dated 22.8.2007 to the respondent Bank issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Manali Town Panchayat cetifying that the land is an industrial land. 

It is further stated by the respondent Bank that it is in custody and possession of the original title deeds and documents including the sale deed in favour of the petitioner and the allegation that no valid equitable mortgage was created is false and the property is not agricultural land and Section 31(i) of the SARFAESI Act is not attracted

The respondent has further stated that after considering the representation of the petitioner, the respondent sent its reply on 5.8.2009 by registered post with acknowledgement due, which was returned after several attempts by the postal department with an endorsement "door locked always" and the possession notice has been sent to the petitioner and affixed in the respective premises of the petitioner as well as the borrower and was also published in the newspapers as per the Rules and clear 30 days notice before auction of the property was given to the parties on the first occasion and there is no requirement to issue notice for every intended sale, and the issuance of possession notice would show that the reply given by the petitioner was not satisfactory and that the property of the petitioner was brought to sale but there was no bidder and the sale did not take place

. It is further stated by the respondent that the petitioner, without filing application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, has filed the writ petition and it is not maintainable and further, the disputed questions of fact cannot be agitated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 

In support of the submission, the respondent relies on the following decisions: "(1) W.-T. COMMR., A.P. V. COURT OF WARDS, PAIGAH (AIR 1977 SUPREME COURT 113)
(2) SARIF ABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM V. CIT (1993 Supp (4) SCC 707)
(3) C.I.T V. GEMINI PICTURES CIRCUIT PVT. LTD. (1996) 4 SCC 216)
(4) PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK V. O.C. KRISHNAN (2001) 6 SCC 569)
(5) SMT. MANYAM MEENAKSHAMMA V. COMMR. OF WEALTH-TAX [1967] 63 I.T.R. 534]

6. The petitioner filed reply affidavit, in which, he has stated that he has not passed the letter dated 24.8.2007 to the respondent Bank and he did not produce the certificate dated 22.8.2007 from Village Administrative Officer, Manali Town Panchayat as alleged by the respondent Bank and the alleged service of reply dated 5.8.2009, by registered post with acknowledgement due to the petitioner cannot be taken as valid service on the petitioner.

7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the secured asset is agricultural land belonging to the petitioner and as per Section 31(i) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, the provisions of the SARFAESI Act do not apply to any security interest created in agricultural land and the proceedings are vitiated and to highlight the submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the recitals in the sale deed, dated 29.3.1990, Lease Agreement dated 19.9.2001, Patta dated 30.7.2007 and Extracts of Chitta and Adangal, issued by the Village Administrative Officer, Manali Town Panchayat and Land tax receipts, which are found mentioned in the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, dated 24.8.2007.

8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the classification is agricultural land and it continues to be so and it is evident on the face of the documents found mentioned in the Memorandum and no other evidence is required to prove the same and the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 are not applicable and the existence of an alternative remedy under the Act may not be considered an absolute bar in the present case.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank, submits that the determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each case and whether or not the land is an agricultural land is essentially a question of fact, which has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced and the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 does not define the term 'agricultural land' and the object of the Act has to be borne in mind and the term 'agricultural land' cannot be given liberal and wide interpretation and the question as to whether secured asset is an agricultural land or not, cannot be gone into and decided by the Court in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that though the land is described as agricultural land in the sale deed, the petitioner, in the Memorandum and in the affidavit of Declaration executed by him, has not described it as 'agricultural land' and the land is situated in-between the premises of two Companies carrying on manufacturing activities in the urban area and there is no agricultural use of the land and the Village Administrative Officer of the concerned place has also given the certificate stating that the land of the petitioner has been classified as 'industrial land' and hence the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

11. We are conscious of the fact that the documents mentioned in the Letter and Memorandum of Deposit of Title deeds include Patta, Extract of Chitta and Adangal and land tax receipts.
 Though the petitioner has purchased the land in the year 1990, he has obtained Patta in his name only on 30.7.2007, which is evident from the copy of the Patta found in the typed set of the petitioner. 
We also find from the typed set filed by the respondent that the Village Administrative Officer of the place in which the property is situated viz., Manali Town Panchayat, has issued certificate dated 22.8.2007 stating that the classification of the land in which security interest created is 'industrial land'.

12. The Supreme Court in the decision in W.-T. COMMR., A.P., case referred supra, considered whether the land in question was "agricultural lands" within the meaning of Section 2(e)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act. In the said case, the appeal was against a decision of Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, wherein the Full Bench observed that the land in question had been assessed to land revenue as agriculture land, it had two wells and possesses all characteristics of agricultural land and these factors strongly indicate that the land in question is agricultural land. 

The Supreme Court while rejecting such finding held thus: "15. We think that it is not correct to give as wide a meaning as possible to terms used in a statute simply because the statute does not define an expression. The correct rule is that we have to endeavour to find out the exact sense in which the words have been used in a particular context. We are entitled to look at the statute as a whole and give an interpretation in consonance with the purposes of the statute and what logically follows from the terms used. We are to avoid absurd results. If we were to give the widest possible connotation to the words agricultural land , as the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court seemed inclined to give to the term agricultural land , we would reach the conclusion that practically all land, even that covered by buildings, is agricultural land inasmuch as its potential or possible use could be agricultural. 

The object of the Wealth Tax Act is to tax surplus wealth. It is clear that all land is not excluded from the definition of assets. It is only agricultural land which could be exempted. Therefore, it is imperative to give reasonable limits to the scope of the agricultural land , or, in other words, this exemption had to be necessarily given a more restricted meaning than the very wide ambit given to it by the Andhra Pradesh Full Bench."

24..... We agree that the determination of the character of land, according to the purpose for which it is meant or set apart and can be used, is a matter which ought to be determined on the facts of each particular case. What is really required to be shewn is the connection with an agricultural purpose and user and not the mere possibility of user of land, by some possible future owner or possessor, for an agricultural purpose. It is not the mere potentiality, which will only affect its valuation as part of assets , but its actual condition and intended user which has to be seen for purposes of exemption from wealth tax.... .... We do not think that all these considerations were kept in view by the taxing authorities in deciding the question of fact which was really for the assessing authorities to determine having regard to all the relevant evidence and the law laid down by this Court. The High Court should have sent back the case to the assessing authorities for deciding the question of fact after stating the law correctly.

25. We think that this is a fit case in which we should set aside the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court and hold that the tribunal should determine afresh, from a correct angle, the question of fact whether any of the lands under consideration were agricultural or not for the purposes of the Act before it...." Though the observation has been made in the decision arising under a Taxation statute, yet the observation as to the test to determine as to whether the land is an agricultural land or not, is clearly found mentioned.

13. It is seen that the decision of the Supreme Court referred above was followed by this Court in the decision in D.Ravichandran Vs. Manager, I.O.B., case referred supra, and it was held that the question whether the secured asset is an agricultural land or not, whether any agricultural operations are being carried on etc, are undoubtedly questions of fact, which cannot be gone into and decided in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court in the decision in SARIF ABIBI MOHMED IBRAHIM'S CASE, referred above held: "12.Whether a land is an agricultural land or not is essentially a question of fact. Several tests have been evolved in the decisions of this Court and the High Courts, but all of them are more in the nature of guidelines. The question has to be answered in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. There may be factors both for and against a particular point of view. The Court has to answer the question on a consideration of all of them a process of evaluation. The inference has to be drawn on a cumulative consideration of all the relevant facts." Thus, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court, the question of fact whether the secured asset is an agricultural land or otherwise cannot be gone into in a writ petition.

14. Admittedly, the secured asset is in urban area. The land is situated in Manali, which is an industrial area and it is said to be surrounded by industrial buildings and there are no agricultural operations being carried on nearby. In such circumstances, whether the nature and character of the land is agricultural, has to be proved by evidence. It is also relevant that the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the decision in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX CASE (cited supra) has laid down that merely because the term used in a statute is not defined, it is not correct to give a wide meaning, and interpretation in consonance with the purpose of the statute and what logically follows from the terms used has to be made to avoid absurd results. Therefore, it is imperative to give a reasonable limit to the scope of the "agricultural land" found mentioned in clause (i) of Section 31 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002.

15. Though the petitioner has stated that he purchased the land in the year 1990, he has obtained Patta in the year 2007 just before executing the Memorandum and as such, the use in which the land is put into, has to be proved by the petitioner by adducing evidence. The documents relied on by the petitioner and found mentioned in the Memorandum, themselves cannot be conclusive proof that the secured asset is an agricultural land and the claim has to be established by adducing evidence.

16. It is settled law that the disputed questions of fact cannot be determined in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Without exhausting the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act, the petitioner has straightaway filed the writ petition. In the facts and circumstances of the case in which the decision in K. RAAMASELVAM V. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK (2009 (5) CTC 385) arose, relied on by the petitioner, it is held that there is no need to countenance such a plea raised by the petitioners in that case, as the question raised in that case was purely on a question of interpretation of the Statutory Rule as mentioned by the Division Bench therein and the ratio of the said decision will not apply to the present case.

17. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of N.SRINIVASA RAO's, referred supra, to support his argument that the classification of the land as contained in the revenue records is final and conclusive. The Supreme Court in the said case was considering the scope of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the effect of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 on such proceedings. One of the contentions raised before the Supreme Court was that the subject land was included within the limits of the Hyderabad Municipality, and though the land was classified as agricultural lands, it has lost its agricultural character. Considering the facts of the said case the Supreme Court held that except for the fact that the said lands were included within an urban area, there is nothing to show that the user of the same had been altered with the passage of time. In the said case, there was adjudication of the rival claims before a Special Judge as to whether there was land grabbing within the scope of the Andhra Pradesh Law Grabbing Act. In the said context the Supreme Court rendered such a finding. In the case on hand, there has been no such prior adjudication into disputed question of facts and the petitioner has chosen to straightway approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and seeks for adjudication of such disputed question of fact, which is impermissible. Therefore, the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of 'N.SRINIVASA RAO' does not in any manner advance the case of the petitioner and cannot be applied to the present facts. In view of the above, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has discharged the burden of proof that the land is an agricultural land.

18. The next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent Bank has not considered the objection of the petitioner and has not communicated the reasons for non-acceptance as stipulated under Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act and possession of the land was not taken by the respondent as contemplated under Rule 8(1) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and there was non-compliance of the said Rule and hence the proceedings are vitiated. It is the submission of the respondent Bank that it considered the representation of the petitioner and sent reply by registered post with acknowledgment due and that was returned after several attempts by the postal department with an endorsement "door locked always" and hence there is compliance of the provision of Section 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act and the possession notice has been sent to the petitioner and affixed in the site as well as in the respective premises of the borrower and guarantors as per the Rule 8(1) of Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 and clear 30 days notice before auctioning the property for the first time has been given and there is no requirement to issue 30 days notice for every intended sale and the provisions under Rules 8 and 9 were complied with.

19. In fact a similar contention was considered by the Division Bench of this Court in I.D.B.I Ltd Vs. M/s.KAMALDEEP SYNTHETICS LTD, AIR 2007 Madras 173, and Chief Justice A.P.Shah, as he then was, delivering the Judgment held:
"9. The proviso to sub-section (3-A) of S.13 of the SARFAESI Act makes it abundantly clear that the reasons so communicted or the likely action of the secured creditor at the stage of communication of reasons shall not confer any right upon the borrower to prefer an application to the DRT under S.17 or the Court of District Judge under S.17-A of the Act. Thus, the basic object of sub-section (3-A) of S.13 of the SARFAESI Act is to ensure the element of transparency and fair play in the implementation of the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to demonstrate prejudice or loss that is likely to be caused to the respondent by reason of the possession notice given to it, earlier to the communication of the reasons for non-acceptance of the objections raised by the borrower. In our opinion, at the most, it would amount to a mere irregularity and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant-bank has substantially complied with the provisions of S. 13(3-A) of the SARFAESI Act." Thus, in view of the above decision, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit acceptance.

20. The issues whether the provisions of the Act are applicable, whether there is any procedural error are all matters to be adjudicated in an application (appeal) under Section 17 of the Act and not in a writ petition. In this regard, we are guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK V. O.C.KRISHNAN (2001) 6 SCC 569), which dealt with a decision of the Calcutta High Court, which exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution and interfered with an order of a Debt Recovery Tribunal ordering sale of mortgaged property under the provisions of Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. The Supreme Court held thus: "6. The Act has been enacted with a view to provide a special procedure for recovery of debts due to the banks and the financial institutions. There is a hierarchy of appeal provided in the Act, namely, filing of an appeal under Section 20 and this fast-track procedure cannot be allowed to be derailed either by taking recourse to proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or by filing a civil suit, which is expressly barred. Even though a provision under an Act cannot expressly oust the jurisdiction of the court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, nevertheless, when there is an alternative remedy available, judicial prudence demands that the Court refrains from exercising its jurisdiction under the said constitutional provisions. This was a case where the High Court should not have entertained the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution and should have directed the respondent to take recourse to the appeal mechanism provided by the Act."

21. In view of the above, the petitioner is not entitled for the prayer sought for in the writ petition.

22. The writ petition is dismissed. Liberty is given to the petitioner to avail the remedy provided under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act on any of the measures taken by the respondent Bank under Section 13(4) of the Act. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed. (C.N., J.) (T.S.S., J.) 10.3.2010
Index : Yes
Internet: Yes
vks
To
1. The Authorised Officer,
Indian Bank,
Teynampet Branch,
463, Anna Salai,
Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
C.NAGAPPAN, J.
and
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
vks
W.P.No.21759 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009